OMG - Obama has got to be the most corrupt President we've ever elected

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

Haha there's a typo in my quote about the democrats attacking their own kind.

Romney is good with the economy, I agree.

He better represents business people than Obama, true.

But economy and business are not the only important matters in a country.

Keep in mind that there're more registered democrats than registered republicans, last I checked.

This means that, whether the economy is important or not, democrats tend towards safety nets. Safety nets are expensive. It's paid for by increasing taxes. However, even republicans can cost our country great amounts. George W. Bush lowered our taxes and while on the surface this looks good for business, one must also consider that he was president of our country when we inititiated Operation Iraqi Freedom and the resulting war cost billions of dollars and this is something everybody across the world will be paying for a long time. I'm not saying that starting the war in Iraq was good or not good, I'm only saying that, when you sum up everything, voting for a republican doesn't necessarily mean that government will shrink and that budgets will balance. I could point to countless examples of budget busting programs started by both republican and democrat administrations. Bottom line, voted for you best represents YOU. But don't expect any miracles. Don't expect the country to be saved over night. It's the people that solve the problems, at the end of the day.

edit on 28-9-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

The economy is the #1 concern of the American people.

The GDP just slowed to 1.3%.

It's already over. No wonder Obama already bought his $29,000,000 Oahu home.

He needs to buy a surfboard.

DID anyone see the Southpark episode where Obama steals the Hope Diamond???

Originally posted by Golf66
I’ll just add this article I just read to this thread rather than make another since it fits the theme here perfectly.

Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President
Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.
In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family.

Read more: dailycaller.com...

Really His Highness's - "needs" costs more than the entire Royal Family? This is insane…

I guess when you want to bash Obama, -- who needs facts and logic?

Wikipedia

The official reported annual cost to the British Public of keeping the Royal Family was £41.5 million for the 2008-09 financial year. This figure is disputed as the real cost since it does not include the cost of security provided by the Police and the Army, the lost revenue of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster and other expenses.
...
However it has been estimated by the anti-monarchy pressure group Republic that when additional costs including security, lost revenue and palace grounds maintenance among others are included the cost is between £134 and £184 million per year.

That's about $300,000,000. Given the tiny size of Britain compared to the US and its general insignificance, I don't think the US expenditure is out of proportion.

Besides, by saying what you are saying you just making us look cheap. Why do I need to care about the UK anyhow? I don't even like "bangers and mash".

reply to post by buddhasystem


Okay, wait a minute. You said it was proportionally right? So the Welfare Family gets to spend more if the nation has more people?

How about we take into account how proportional it is when you add the number of Royal Family members supported by that number and then compare it to the 4 people (and a dog) being supported by the 1.4 billion over here?

And I care. One of my favorite things was to call the Royal Family the richest Welfare Family on earth and now I can't. Obama stole my joy....along with a lot of other things.

reply to post by Valhall



Eighteen pages and I'm wondering how many people have changed their minds and are going to vote differently than they originally thought?

I bailed on Obama a long time ago when he left the patriot act intact. But I'm damn sure not going to vote for a man that I feel is an outright Corporate Fascist, abusive to animals and has no Character or honor.

That leaves 3rd parties and write ins. This could be an interesting November.

reply to post by olaru12


Holy crap...when was he abusive to animals? I missed that one.

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by olaru12

 

Holy crap...when was he abusive to animals? I missed that one.

I'm referring to Mitt when he tied his dog to the top of his car for a 12 hr ride to Canada.

www.petside.com...

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Okay, wait a minute. You said it was proportionally right? So the Welfare Family gets to spend more if the nation has more people?

You see, all you can bring here is attitude. You start off the bat with "Welfare Family". I'm sorry I can't be seriously debating this lame ad hominem/red herring. As far as you are concerned, Presidential budget in the US just must be the same as in Slovenia. Suite yourself.

And yes Obama's employer did certify that he held a professor position at the University, so your post is a lie.

reply to post by olaru12


Here is the vid clip to what you referenced and what Valhall is ignoring



I love the initial comment on Youtube. "Air-tight"? How did the dog breathe for 12 hours? lol!

But seriously! 12 hour road trip!? Dog is placed in a cage and strapped to the top of the car. No dog enjoys that. If you believe the dog enjoyed it then you don't deserve a dog.

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by olaru12

 

Holy crap...when was he abusive to animals? I missed that one.

Of course you did! You direct your scrutiny at Obama and how he spends too much on toilet paper.

The tiny country of Palau voted to leave America and on September 2009 they were supposed to get their last check of $20 million from America and be set free.

They threatened Obama and said they wanted $200 million or they were siding with China.

Obama gave them $250 million and free money annually until 2034. Tiny country of 12,000 strong threatened Obama and WON!

Corrupt Presidente....you betcha!

My favorite though....Bill Clinton passed an Executive Order putting sanctions on China for selling military arms to Iran. The order prohibits China from exporting Norinco rifles or any weapon to America.....and America can't sell any weapons to China.

Obama got the US State Department to declare LRAD as "not a weapon".....so Obama could export the LRAD sound weapon to China.

Poor Israeli's are soon going to be faced with all those muslims pointing LRAD sound weapons at them they will likely get from China.....thanks to Obama.

Did into Obama and Oxycontin. Oxycontin was the ONLY pain medication Americans with cancer and other painful illnesses could get. Obama FORCED Purdue Pharma to reformulate Oxycontin and the new formula hit the US market the 4th quarter 2010. The new narcotic doesn't work, those terminal cancer patients are suffering some horrendous pain as that new formula aint working. The Fed's said they HAD to reformulate Oxycontin because "4 million Americans were illegally obtaining the controlled narcotic"......how the hell were 4 million Americans illegally obtaining a controlled substance?

What about the cancer people and others who NEEDED a working pain pill? How did Obama skip testing this new drug formula before it was pushed onto the market? Pre-market safety trials? Weren't any.

Obama's got BLOOD on his hands. American blood.

reply to post by buddhasystem


No, he was not a professor.

www.michigandaily.com...

He was a lecturer. Do you seriously think the university would contradict his lie when they are currently able to bill they have an elected president as former faculty and probably have a shoe-in for a library? I think not.

And, yes, I believe both the Royal Family and the Obama family are welfare families.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


That's not animal abuse. And if he has a car that can make a 12 hour trip without any stops (with kids needing to pee), then we need to tap into what kind of car he's got.

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

No, he was not a professor.

Again, the organization who employed him knows better than you. So unless you are a Dean at this University, your opinion is irrelevant and statements coming from you are false. This is the statement from University of Chicago:

Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors

But I guess if the right wing press declared Jesus was the Satan, you'd have to concur.

reply to post by buddhasystem



No, I wouldn't have to concur, and wouldn't concur, but I would still admit firmly that Obama was not a professor. Two different subjects, now isn't it?

Click here for more information.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Watch yourself buddy. I haven't called you any names and I'm not okay with you calling me names, so stop it.

He wasn't a professor. Now, is there some reason you continue to avoid the fact he spent his time as a "civil rights lawyer" assisting 25,000 poor people getting kicked into -11 degree winter weather? Some reason you want to fixate on the fact that even the University states he was a lecturer instead of focusing on the fact that IN ADDITION TO him "padding his resume" and calling himself a professor when he wasn't, he also decided to lie and claim that evicting poor people in frigid weather is equivalent to being a "civil rights lawyer"?

So it's been 10 days since you posted this.

And my question is: if the report from the washington examiner were credible, why hasn't it been used by the Romney campaign?

The only conclusion that I can draw is that there is some faulty reporting. And if this is the case, would you have to reconsider the proposition of Obama being the most corrupt ever?

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17



That could be true, or the Romney campaign is as incompetent as the McCain one was. Either is as likely as the other.

reply to post by seagull


Good point, but I think the incompetency of the last two Republican campaigns is more about the inability to clarify their plans and vision, as opposed to the inability to paint the opponent negatively. Romney campaign ads are something like 75% percent negative, why wouldn't they use stuff this juicy?

Washington Post Campaign Ads stats

Then again, the way this is playing out makes a part of me think Romney's entire campaign is a sham and it's already been decided that Obama is the guy.